As far as the criminal law is concerned, the Indian Penal Code is the penal law dealing with the definition and punishment of an offence. While charging a person with a particular provision of the penal law, several things have to be kept in mind such as gravity of the crime, age of the accused and certain other factors. There are certain ingredients or certain elements of every offence in a penal law which have to be satisfied for charging a person with the same.

In this particular blog post, the Mohd Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) , famously known as the Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast case, has been talked about. The blog mainly deliberates on the issue, that on what grounds the accused were charged with the specific sections of the Indian Penal Code and the basic ingredients of those specific sections.

The Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case

How It Reached The Supreme Court?

On 21st of May 1996, a bomb blast took place at Lajpat Magar, Delhi, which led to 13 casualties and rendered 38 innocent people injured. The list of accused included 17 persons, out of which 4 reached the High Court of Delhi against the decision of Trial Court and out of these 4, 2 reached the Supreme Court of India in an appeal in the year 2013. It was on 6th of July 2023, that the Supreme Court finally decided upon this long pending appeal.

While the trial was going on in the trial court, out of 17 accused, only 6 were convicted. Out of these 6, only 4 reached the High Court in appeal, challenging death sentence as awarded to 3 of them, Muhammad Naushad, Mirza Nissar and Mohd. Ali Bhatt, and life imprisonment as awarded to one of the accused Javed Ahmed Khan.

Out of the three who were awarded death sentence, the High Court of Delhi commuted it to life imprisonment for one Muhammad Naushad, and the rest two were acquitted. And the one who appealed to challenge his life imprisonment, Javed Ahmed Khan, his award was upheld as it is.

Hence, now after reaching the High Court of Delhi, as in judgment dated 22nd of November, 2012, only two accused were awarded life imprisonment and their conviction was upheld and the rest of them were acquitted. The two convicts appealed High Court's order in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's Verdict
The Supreme Court reversed the HC's order of acquittal awarded to the two of the accused, Mirza Nissar Hussain and Mohd. Ali Bhatt, and hence, now all four of them are convicted and all of them are awarded imprisonment of life without remission.
The common charges on all 4 of them are those of:

• Section 302 of IPC: Punishment for murder
• Section 307 of IPC: Attempt to murder
• Section 436 of IPC: Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.
• Section 120B of IPC: Punishment for criminal conspiracy

Three of them, except Javed Ahmed Khan, stand convicted under Section 411 (Dishonestly receiving stolen property) along with the above said charges, for stealing a Maruti car, belonging to Mr. Atul Math, that was used in the blast. This was done by making a duplicate the actual car keys. The punishment under this Section extends to 3 years imprisonment of either description with or without a fine.

One of the accused, Muhammad Naushad, was additionally charged under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (Punishment for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances) on the grounds of recovery of explosives from his residence.

All these Sections under which the convicts have been made liable, shall be discussed in detail in the following sections.

What Is Life Imprisonment Without Remission?

Often a misconception is made that Life Imprisonment extends upto 14 years, but life imprisonment may extend upto 14 years, 20 years, 30 years and even to the lifetime. Section 432 and 433 of Criminal Procedure Code provides that the state may release a person convicted for life imprisonment upon completion of 14 years of imprisonment. This is sort of remission.

The Supreme Court in Bhagirath v. Delhi Administration, described life imprisonment as confinement or imprisonment for the rest of ''convicts' natural life'.

Remission under Section 432 of CrPC refers to reduction of sentence without changing its character. Power of remission has been granted to the appropriate Government that may be either Union Government or the State Government, depending upon the matter, if ut falls under matter enumerated in Union or State list respectively.

In the present case, the Supreme Court also relied on Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gaffar v. State of Karnataka, wherein a principle was laid providing that the Supreme Court has an option of giving primacy to life imprisonment over death penalty, in such cases that rely solely upon the circumstantial evidences or the High Court has given life imprisonment of acquittal.

Further, relying upon para 93 and 94 of Union of India v. Shriharan and Ors., in place of awarding death penalty, the Supreme Court granted life imprisonment for natural life time of the accused persons, i.e., the imprisonment till last breath of the accused. The Supreme Court excluded this imprisonment from the purview of remission, hence, the State or Central Government cannot step in to reduce the sentence.

Also, the Supreme Court ordered those convicts who are on bail, to surrender before the Court and canceled their bail bonds.

Hence, the appeal for acquittal was set aside and all the four accused who appealed to the High Court of Delhi are now convicted and awarded life imprisonment.

Section 302 Of The IPC: Why Are They Convicted For Murder?

The bare wordings of the Section 300 of the IPC, which defines murder, is reproduced below:
The bare wordings of Section 300 of the IPC can be broken down and following ingredients can be extracted:

• Performance of an act likely to cause death.
• The person performing the act is aware of the same.
• The accused is the person performing the act.

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder:

1. If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
2. If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or
3. If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
4. If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

For an act to be considered as murder, two elements have to be satisfied namely Actus reus and Mens Rea, i.e. guilty act and guilty mind.

In the instant case, the Hon'ble SC upheld the charge of Section 302 of the IPC i.e punishment for murder, as both the elements were satisfied in the act. The act of conspiring a bomb blast and setting a city ablaze constituted mens rea, and the act of detonating the bomb killing 13 people constituted Actus reus.

Punishment for murder is mentioned in Section 302 of IPC which provides that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. However, the SC in Bacchan Singh v. The State of Punjab has laid down that death penalty would be awarded in rarest of rare cases only.

Section 307 Of The IPC: Why Are They Convicted For Attempt?

The bare wording of Section 307 of the IPC is reproduced below:

Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.�[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.]

The bare wordings can be broken down and following ingredients can be extracted:

1. Attempt to cause death of a human
2. The accused is the person making attempt
3. The attempt so committed is constituted by such an act of which the accused has knowledge that it is likely to cause death, or the act in its ordinary nature is sufficient to cause death or such a bodily injury as would finally cause death.

Attempt has both the elements that constitute a crime i.e., mens rea or an intent to murder as well as actus rea or action done towards receiving such intent, although in an attempt the actus rea does not work as per what was intended.

The Supreme Court upheld the charge under Section 307 against all of the accused, the reason being the 38 injuries. The bomb blasts are planned with an aim of mass killings, i.e., murder of many people at the same time. The bomb blast, though not aimed to kill those 38 people only, had an attempt to cause as many murders as possible.

The convicts are charged under Section 302, i.e., Punishment for murder for killing 13 people and considering the rest of them who survived or were part of the crowd where the bombing took place, the convicts are charged under Section 307 for attempt.

The convicts had full knowledge, coupled with an intent that implanting a bomb at the crowded Central Market of Lajpat Nagar is likely to cause death of many and such injuries that can cause death. Hence, along with the successful commission of murded, the convicts are charged for attempt to murder as well.

Criminal Conspiracy: Why Are They Charged Under Section 120b (1) Of The IPC?

Bare wordings of Section 120B (1) of the IPC are reproduced below:
"Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence."

Section 120B(1) of the IPC deals with criminal conspiracy of such offenses whose commission carry a punishment of death, life imprisonment or a rigorous imprisonment of minimum 2 years. These offenses shall be punished in same manner as if the conspirator has abetted for the offense.

The Supreme Court in this case has made the convicts liable under Section 120B read with Section 302 of IPC. Hence, the convicts would be charged with conspiracy for murder, and the punishment shall be same as under 302 IPC, i.e., Death/Life Imprisonment, with or without a fine.
 

Section 436 Of The Ipc: Charged Foe Mischief By Fire Or Explosive Substance To Destroy Buildings

The bare wording of Section 436 of the IPC is reproduced below:
Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any build�ing which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Following essentials can be derived from this section:

1. The offender should commit a mischief
2. The mischief should be caused by a fire or any explosive substance.
3. The person has intention or knowledge that such act would cause destruction.
4. Destruction should be of a building (immovable) which is either a place of worship or a human dwelling or a place for custody of (movable or immovable) property.

'Building' in this section refers to even a bare structure, consisting of a ceiling, internal walls and two flooring lands.

Punishment for offense under this Section is either life imprisonment or Imprisonment of either description extending upto 10 years, with or without a fine.

In this case, the Supreme Court convicted all the accused persons under Section 436 of IPC because thousands of shops and godowns, as are places for custody of property, were reduced to dust and the impact of blast even reached the residential complexes near the market.

Why Was Mhd.Naushad Charged With Section 5 Of Explosive Substances Act, 1908?

The Bare wordings of Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act is reproduced below:
Any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance or special category explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, shall, unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, be punished,

5. Punishment for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances.�Any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance or special category explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, shall, unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, be punished:

1. in the case of any explosive substance, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
2. in the case of any special category explosive substance, with rigorous imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.]

To be held liable under this section, following essentials are to be fulfilled:

1. The person has possession of explosives or,
2. Has control over such explosives
3. He has no explanation as to how it was kept for lawful object
4. There is a reasonable suspicion that the possession is not for a lawful object.

Punishment for such possession of explosive substance is Simple Imprisonment upto 10 years with or without a fine, or if the person is in possession of a special category of explosive, punishment shall extend upto either Life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment upto 10 years.

The Supreme Court here made only Muhammad Naushad liable under this section. Due to lack of direct evidence, the Court here relied on the presence of sufficient circumstantial evidence, i.e., similar sort of explosives, as were used in the blast at the market, were recovered from him place, for which the convict could not provide any explanation.

Conclusion
Hence, the Hon'ble SC charged the accused not with just charges of murder (Section 302) but also with attempt to murder (Section 307), mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc. (Section 436), criminal conspiracy (Section 120B). Apart from charges under the IPC, the Hon'ble SC also charged one of the accused under the Explosive Substance Act 1908. And thus awarded the convicts with sentence of life imprisonment, and excluded it from the purview of remission.

In this particular case the Hon'ble SC not just concluded the trial but also expressed grief over the plight of criminal justice system, which lacks speedy trial. Along with this, the Hon'ble SC also cited "involvement of influential persons" for the slow trial. Thus this case expresses an alarming concern regarding the slow trial along with the inculpation of influential persons with money and muscle power.